1.9.1 --> 1.10.0!

Indeed, which also shows why decimals shouldn't be used in version numbering...

Oh, and more and more .#s aren't anal-retentive?? Give me a freakin' break. "Version 1.9" I can accept, but anything beyond that is just unnecessarily complicated. If a program has THAT many revisions its development should be reevaluated. Why do you think most major software apps (like Windows) don't bother with version #s anymore (on public releases)? Years/dates (2000) are a better indication, but acronyms (ME, XP) are just confusing. Adobe and Macromedia (which Adobe now owns, I believe) tend to use acronyms (or alphanumeric), but they are getting away from version numbering too.

No, as long as one doesn't insist theirs is the 'only right' way of marking software version that everyone else should follow...


My dxdiag says:

Microsoft Windows XP Professional (5.1, build 2600)

Just because they no longer shove the version number in your face doesn't mean it's not there...

Consistency would be nice...

Duh, but notice it's not 5.1.2600 PUBLICALLY. However, checking explorer.exe's properties reveals a ghastly 6.0.2900.2180. I never said version numbers weren't still there on some level--just not shoved in the user's face, unlike SL's version numbering...

So why should they be used on IPv4 addresses?

True, but Windows and Second Life client are distributed in quite different manner. If SL client only underwent single real (but major) revision every 1-2 years, then i see how it could be distributed as "Second Life for Virtual Businessman" or "Third Life for Home user" or "Fourth Life, Multimedia edition" with maybe "Service Pack" or something released every now and then. And you could get away with it, as frequency of updates just isn't large enough to introduce confusion about what you really have.

But when you upgrade things often then you can run out of cute names fast, and numbers are convenient. It's just the difference between "1.10.0 or maybe 1.9.1" that hardly matters ^^;;

You know who Eep reminds me of?...

It tickels me that they went to 1.10, I'd been hoping they would, just for the absurdity factor. Course by changing the version number they can justify setting back the release date 3 weeks.

What did they remove?

The pretty new shaders, which for the most part have been replaced by the older model currently in use in the main grid (or at least, it looks a lot like it). Some people (most notably people with older hardware, but some people without the acumen to update their drivers) found that the new shaders weren't working as well, or at all, for them and did nothing but complain. >P

I still say there should be a debug menu option to enable the pretty new shaders for those of us who actually can use them, and also as incentive for people who can't (for one reason or another) to do something about it. They don't need to turn them on though, and we can all live in harmony.

The math behind subnetworks is far more comprehensive than version numbering.

Still, IP addresses are written out like decimal numbers, using too many dots Besides, grouping IP addresses to four decimal numbers is confusing, if you watch it from a subnet point of view. To be really correct, you'd have to write out IP addresses as binary numbers.

Version numbers do not have any standard, so everyone is free to choose which numbering scheme they want to use. A widely used and accepted way still is to use major.minor.patchlevel, all of those numbers being independant and not to be viewed as decimal fractions (too many dots there as well). If you don't like the numbering scheme, that's too bad, but it doesn't make it wrong or the people using it lazy. They just chose to use a numbering scheme that doesn't tent do your taste.

No, really, they're NOT based on decimals any more than IP addresses.

They are and always have been nothing but a naming convention.

No one carries out arithmetic on version numbers do they ? the result
would be meaningless whether or not decimal convention were followed.

It would also be meaningless to give a sw point release a whole number
simply to follow decimal convention. SL 2.0 this month ? I think not !

Yes they are.

No they haven't.

Counting is arithmetic.

There was no reason to move to 1.10 when 1.9.xx works fine (but "1.9 build xx" works better).

/112/01/107106/1.html

Vote and make your voice be heard!

MM

Yes, Yes, Yes Feynt I cannot agree with you more!

Version numbers were never met to be used as a math number, because it is mainly a way for record keeping for the company. I've seen companies use words for version numbers, too. There is even a version number with numbers and a letter at the end like "1.15.7c".

If you continue to think version numbers are suppose to be math, you are just going to drive yourself crazy. It's been around for ages and I've see whole bunch of ways to show a version number. Lindens use the simplist version of the version number system.

This is one of the many instances where the somewhat unfortunate traditional period decimal separator as used in many english-speaking countries causes people to confuse arbitrary strings with decimal numbers.

Of course, version and revision strings usually are not completely arbitrary, otherwise they'd be useless for version control - but version control systems at least have rarely ever treated them as decimal numbers (for instance good old RCS, which dates back to the early 80s and lives on in CVS and many other modern version control systems will happily produce "1.10" revisions). The decimal numbers in those strings are in fact between the periods - and they are integers.

To end the bickering, all version referals will henceforth be made 01/10/00. Eep can't complain impotently that /'s make no sense in a version string and others can't argue with him that they do. Because they DO, and have for as long as dates have been recorded in the DD/MM/YY format. Especially since 2000 (01/01/00).

Now shake hands and play nice children. >P

I have to say...

I never thought I would see such a raging debate over a version numbering system. Here's the version # for Windows XP on my work PC:

6.0.2900.2180.xpsp_sp2_gdr.050301-1519

That's Microsoft for you... no wonder so many people hate them. They have a "whack" version numbering system.

hehehe

Eep, I think you are wrong. The grapheme . is rendered in a number of phonemes (dot, point, full stop, period etc.) just in the English speaking world, and with a number of meanings. We rely on the context to distinguish between them, and repitition changes the meaning again, and the phoneme, into an ellipsis.

And insisting it is a decimal point is also wrong, 1.1+0.1=2.0 is entirely correct in binary, the point notation is merely a convetional divider between n^0 and n^-1 irrespective of the base you are working in: it has no special "decimal" meaning.

In addition, even in places where is does specifically carry the decimal point notation convention changes the way we treat it. 3.14 is usually read as three point one four by the mathematically literate. The same number with a small change $3.14 is read as 3 dollars and 14 cents - the meaning is not changed but the conventions by which we discuss it has.

You are obviously deeply unhappy with the concept of a 'version point' but the context of 1.9.1 or 1.7.5 or 1.10.0 provides enough information for it to be unambiguously read as something other than a decimal point - even though you hate it, it performs the basic function required of the system - clearly communicating to the users, including you.

If you want something to really froth about, I was recently shown some statistics for the NHL season. The best goaltender in the set that I saw had a save percentage of 0.967 I think it was. Why do they bother if they only save less than 1% of the shots on goal - that's not implicit, new meanings evolving etc., it's just WRONG.

No, they aren't. There's no math beyond simple counting in version numbers, the decimals are just placeholders. Thats why updates as a third place to the figure - 1.8.9, as opposed to one 1.89.

Does it really matter?
Though my opinion is they shoulda just stuck with 1.9.x since it's less confusing IMO

jeez I really dont think switching numbers would fix the issues already in that version

Enough, this pointless debate has gone on for pages. You're all wrong, simply because you can't leave it alone. >P
Let's worry about the rapidly approaching release date and finding more bugs to report, not how to specify what bloody version it is.